(a) The purpose of the revocation hearing shall be to determine whether the parolee has violated the conditions of his release and, if so, whether his parole or mandatory release should be revoked or reinstated.
(b) The alleged violator may present witnesses, and documentary evidence in his behalf. However, the presiding hearing officer or examiner panel may limit or exclude any irrelevant or repetitious statement or documentary evidence.
(c) At a local revocation hearing, the Commission may on the request of the alleged violator or on its own motion, request the attendance of persons who have given statements upon which revocation may be based. Those witnesses who are present shall be made available for questioning and cross-examination in the presence of the alleged violator unless the presiding hearing officer or examiner panel finds good cause for their non-attendance. Adverse witnesses will not be requested to appear at institutional revocation hearings.
(d) All evidence upon which the finding of violation may be based shall be disclosed to the alleged violator at or before the revocation hearing. The hearing officer or examiner panel may disclose documentary evidence by permitting the alleged violator to examine the document during the hearing, or where appropriate, by reading or summarizing the document in the presence of the alleged violator.
(e) In lieu of an attorney, an alleged violator may be represented at a revocation hearing by a person of his choice. However, the role of such non-attorney representative shall be limited to offering a statement on the alleged violator's behalf with regard to reparole or reinstatement to supervision.
(f) A revocation decision may be appealed under the provisions of § 2.26 or § 2.27 as applicable.
[42 FR 39809, Aug. 5, 1977, as amended at 44 FR 3408, Jan. 16, 1979; 51 FR 32785, Sept. 16, 1986; 52 FR 33409, Sept. 3, 1987]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1976–2024 · leading case:
Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78 (1976).
Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78 (1976).
· cites it 2× “28 CFR § 2.50 (1976). Petitioner will be entitled to this statutory hearing within 90 days after execution of the warrant.”
Sam Richard Kell v. United States Parole Comm'n, 26 F.3d 1016 (10th Cir. 1994).
· cites it 2× “§§ 4201-4218 , 4 the parole regulations, 28 C.F.R. § 2.50 (d), and due process. Some circuits have held that the Commission may not rely on information undisclosed to the prisoner to compute the offense severity under the guidelines or as a basis for exceeding the guidelines.”
Toomey v. Young, 449 F. Supp. 336 (D. Conn. 1978).
· cites it 2× “” 28 C.F.R. § 2.50 (b). Similarly, 18 U.S.C.”
William Phifer v. Warden, United States Penitentiary, Terre Haute, Indiana, 53 F.3d 859 (7th Cir. 1995).
“In this petition, Phifer made four separate allegations: *861 1) that he had been denied prehearing disclosure of police reports which the Commission relied upon in reaching its decision, in violation of 28 C.F.R. 2.50(d); 2) that his offense severity had been calculated in…”
Ball v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 849 F. Supp. 328 (M.D. Penn. 1994).
“Moreover, 28 C.F.R. § 2.50 (c) provides that a parolee, at a local hearing, must make his request for witnesses known to the Commission.”
United States v. Williams, 106 F.4th 1040 (10th Cir. 2024).
“28 C.F.R. § 2.50 (c) (At a revocation hearing before the United States Parole Commission, “the Commission may on the request of the alleged violator or on its own motion, request Page 9 Appellate Case: 23-3170 Document: 010111073890 Date Filed: 07/02/2024 Page: 10 the attendance…”
Fassler v. Pendleton, 48 F. App'x 627 (9th Cir. 2002).
“§ 4214 (a)(2); 28 C.F.R. § 2.50 (c). Whether that right has been *629 violated is determined by balancing the parolee’s interest in confrontation against the “good cause” offered by the Commission.”
Maret v. Martin, 550 F. Supp. 1 (W.D. Okla. 1981).
“28 C.F.R. § 2.50 . The decision to revoke parole may be appealed to the Regional Commissioner provided the appeal is filed on the appropriate form within 30 days from the date of entry of such decision and that an unappealed decision shall stand as the final decision of the…”
Fassler v. Pendleton, 35 F. App'x 442 (9th Cir. 2002).
“§ 4214 (a)(2)(D); 28 C.F.R. § 2.50 (c). Whether that right has been violated is determined by balancing the parolee’s interest in confrontation against the “good cause” offered by the Commission.”
Trudo v. Warden, 453 F. Supp. 665 (M.D. Penn. 1977).
“28 C.F.R. § 2.50 is the revocation hearing procedure section.”
— 28 C.F.R. § 2.50(d) — 1 case
William Phifer v. Warden, United States Penitentiary, Terre Haute, Indiana, 53 F.3d 859 (7th Cir. 1995).
“In this petition, Phifer made four separate allegations: *861 1) that he had been denied prehearing disclosure of police reports which the Commission relied upon in reaching its decision, in violation of 28 C.F.R. 2.50(d); 2) that his offense severity had been calculated in…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.